@Jhernandez : All sounds great. Thanks.

Minutes from the IRC meeting about how long to support hhvm: https://tools.wmflabs.org/meetbot/wikimedia-office/2017/wikimedia-office.2017-09-27-21.03.html

This was approved in the 2017-10-04 TechCom private meeting.

In T177464#3661861, @Jhernandez wrote:

That makes sense. We prefer to think in more agile terms. We hope to achieve the best result by iterating, and so does product, which has requested we do more exploration in front of real users instead of a waterfall process of development to ensure a higher chance of success with end users on the end product.

Thus, we as engineers have created a task (parent) to figure out how to take this early version of the project in front of real users in 6-8 months which means deploying to production. We didn't think that sending real users traffic to a staging deployment in wmflabs was a very good idea.

Precisely the intention to deploy early to get early user feedback is to avoid the long term risk of wasting effort on something users don't like.

I find it helpful to distinguish between deep architecture/technology decisions which are hard to reverse, and feature/product/UI decisions that are relatively easy.

I'm not sure if it's clear from the RFC process wiki pages, but a recommended practice is to run the RFC earlier rather than later.

Should there be some kind of task relationship between this and T176370: Migrate to PHP 7 in WMF production?

Should there be some kind of task relationship between this and T172165: Require either PHP 7.0+ or HHVM in MW 1.31?

From a TechCom perspective, it seems like an RFC will be a necessary step before getting too far into planning a deployment (even alpha).

Maybe later.

Declining. The interlocks guidance should be close enough. If it ends up not being so, I can create a new ticket.

Not a high priority right now

Not a priority right now

Doesn't seem worth pursuing right now.

Had conversations with several managers in tech. Most feel that while their teams are understaffed and/or are being asked to do more than is possible, they feel able to prioritize, to say "no", and to drop tasks that exceed capacity. With a couple significant exceptions, the teams are not being asked to put in punishing overtime, nor are suffering significant stress from not being able to do all they are asked.

It seems pretty clear that the annual plan won't be updated to reflect tune-up changes. We'll just continue to refer to PP1, 7, and 8 as technology programs that used to be in product.

@Nuria : Have you read the meeting notes mentioned above? To my naive eye, they seem to contain some of the types of questions you asked for earlier. If they're not what you're looking for, then iIt might be helpful to have a meeting with an analyst and/or researcher, to help others understand the kinds of questions that would be particularly meaningful.

In T174829#3611516, @EBjune wrote:

1. removing the current "Epic" tags from the ancestor tasks and replacing them with "Goal" tags, and;

Is that the same as just changing the types of those Epic tags to instead be Goal tags?

This task is kind of done, kind of in progress, and kind of declined. I'll go with declined, since in the end it's unlikely that I will create 3 slides as it was written.

@mmodell : With that form, would we leave the other dropdown set to "Public", even for private tasks?

Perhaps @EBjune could say if either of the workarounds seem feasible.

FY2017/18 Technology Program 3: Addressing technical debt
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2017-2018/Draft/Programs/Technology#Program_3:_Addressing_technical_debt

@JAufrecht : That's a typo on my part. Product Programs 7 and 8 are for fundraising, not for search. PP1 and X-SDC.2 are the only search platform programs. I'll fix the description.

This is a new report for a program, not for a team.

In T170359#3608897, @JAufrecht wrote:

@ksmith, could you please add back the footnote references so I can be sure I get the right projects?

Historical note: I believe at the time Phlogiston was designed, conduit did not expose transaction data for moving a task between columns within a project. I don't know if conduit supports this now.

This was mentioned in Scrum-of-scrums. Who would actually do the work to get it migrated?

I just tried adding an alternative hashtag (good suggestion) but it didn't help.

@JAufrecht : Perhaps eventually phlogiston could pull data via conduit instead of relying on nightly db dumps?

Done: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Technology/Goals/2017-18_Q2/Process

From my perspective, the most urgent need is for: Tech Programs. That's pretty easy: if you own (or co-own) a program (or, I would argue, a sub-program), you would be on the list. Plus presumably me, Joel, and Victoria. Not sure if any eng-admin folks would need to be on that one. There are a couple tech manager who would not be on that list by that criterion, so maybe it should be tech-mgt PLUS non-manager program owners. The "co-own" part would be to include our Product Managers, in cases where the eng lead is listed as the primary owner.

@JAufrecht : Which working group? We spawned 3 at about the same time.

@Neil_P._Quinn_WMF : This task is part of a quarterly goal, so we would like it to be fully resolved before the end of September. Thanks!

@mmodell : Any insights here? Would it be safe to manually remove "scoring-platform-team" from the 1306 milestone?

@mmodell : Is this something you could take care of?

Not worth going back and doing this for July. In October, our quarterly checkin will already be program-centric.

The Audiences department is working on an "interlocks" guidance document which may cover some of this.

Victoria has retracted this request. Any replacement work that comes my way can go in a new task.

Work in progress: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Technology/Goals/2017-18_Q2/Process

@Tbayer : Do you have a status update on this? Thanks!

@brion @Anomie : Could you take a look at this patch?

@Qgil. I'm fine taking over *a* task (or fleet of tasks). This one seems oddly multi-purposed to me.

Planning is underway, as mentioned in a "Heads up" email from Victoria Coleman. Rachel is taking on the primary logistics work, and we are forming a Program Committee which will be responsible for the content. I am helping facilitate that committee's formation and work.